Can Nintendo afford (as in money) a better online service?

I decided to look into why Nintendo notoriously doesn't have much of a focus on Online Play, and I think that the main issue that they have with creating an XBL-level online system is cost.

Their CEO Satoru Iwata admitted a few years ago that Nintendo doesn't have the infrastructure to make a huge online service, mainly because they are a games company that can only make money off of consoles and games. On the other hand, their competitors, Sony and Microsoft are both electronics giants that only have divisions of them focusing on their consoles, while their other divisions profit on other things like Operating Systems, DVD players, and other computer software.

Keep in mind that maintaining an online service isn't exactly a cheap endeavour. Sony and Microsoft have little risk in maintaining the level of an online system that they have, since if their online system somehow loses money, their other divisions can pay for the online in the meantime. Nintendo's main issue is that a huge online service with many features will be too much of a risk for them, since if it does lose money, they have no other divisions to pay for the loss. So, Nintendo has generally gone with a small-scale low-risk service.

There are some people that say Nintendo could afford an online system if they wanted to, but they don't think of their other expenses, such as rising development costs, R&D, and marketing.

Nintendo's planned online service for the Wii U keeps in line of being low-risk, but they plan to make it better by letting third parties define the service for them rather than Nintendo making one itself. This way, Nintendo splits the huge costs of maintaining online with the third parties that define it.

So can they really make an XBL-level service, or is thinking that they will have that level of online wishful thinking?

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

...you'd have to ask Nintendo.

Sony's online service takes on very little risk to Sony themselves as individual games have to provide their own servers. MS, on the other hand, takes on all the risk and charges a fee up front.

Nintendo does provide a small service, cumbersome though it is, so it's just a matter of how much further they want to expand it.

edited 15th Jul '11 2:26:53 PM by Rebochan

The thing about Nintendo and online is that as, essentially, gaming's equivalent to Disney, Nintendo has an obligation to try to prevent children from experiencing things they should not be experiencing lest they get sued by parents because of it.

Unlike Microsoft or Sony, Nintendo has to fight off GIFT in any way possible. Does this make it more annoying to adults who just want to play? Of course, but that is the biggest reason why Nintendo has problems with online. Nintendo has the image of being child-friendly to maintain, and having a service like PSN or Xbox Live is not child-friendly.

edited 15th Jul '11 4:52:43 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly

This pretty much. A lot of the restrictions Nintendo puts on online play is for the sake staying family friendly. Though the Wii (at least) has parental controls on it anyway, so I don't know why it's really necessary.

Sorry, I can't hear you from my FLYING METAL BOX!

Considering how easy the Wii is to setup as is, you don't have to be very old to do it. So anyone decently tech savvy enough can set it up.

And that's quite a good point. It's not hard to set up the Parents Controls.

However, it's less money for Nintendo to spend, so they can use it on game and accessory development. And they probably could if it was important enough. While some games suffer for it, it's their choice regardless.

Quest 64 thread

I never really cared that much about Nintendo's onlining failings (Pokemon needs a better GTS, but that's all I really bother with), I keep their systems for local MP and exclusives, my PC does internet gaming much better and free-er than the other services (this is the same reason I'm not getting a Wii U with the current info. No A won't bring exclusives over, and only one serious controller a console).

edited 15th Jul '11 6:07:21 PM by deuxhero

Good online isn't rocket science. Gamespy, for instance, operated a free metaserver for virtually every PC game published in the late '90s and early '00s, which tracked stats and everything for gazillions of servers; P2P and dedicated, private and colo, amateur and first party; modded and vanilla. On that last note, I'm kind of amazed console companies haven't release PC server software for their games, a lot of Mac/Windows-exclusive games have server-only Linux releases.

Eric,

That's because Gamespy didn't really care what people did on their networks as long as no one tried to exploit the system itself (and I'm not really sure they even bothered about that). As previous posters have said Nintendo does have to care due to their image (good or bad) and they need to ensure strict content control rather than just providing the infrastructure.

No, no, you've got it all wrong. Cartoony=/=Disney. Nintendo is not a solely family-friendly company. They had no problem releasing games like Perfect Dark and Splinter Cell on their systems.

They aren't Disney. Blaming it on image is a flawed analysis.

All I can say to Nintendo is that they're either going to build an online service or get knocked out of competition, because now days you can't cater to hardcore gamers without online services.

The best thing for Nintendo to do is handle it like Sony to minimize the risk. Nintendo can make an online service, they just have to take a risk, and if gaming keeps going the way it's going, it's a risk they'll have to take if they want to stay in business.

The friend codes IS related to the family friendly angle though. They are explicitly designed to stop children from being accosted by pervs. They're also cumbersome and ridiculous. On the flipside, the amount of rape threats on Nintendo's games vs. Xbox Live is much lower.

"Sued by parents" is laughable though. What would they get sued for that wouldn't get laughed out of a courtroom in five minutes? Live and PSN haven't gotten sued.

They're unnesesary. Like I said, if Nintendo wants to cater to hardcore gamers, which they say they are, they're going to have to get rid of their current system and build a new online service that doesn't require friend codes.

Oh, agreed, I was just arguing that the idea wasn't rooted in their family friendly image.

The amount of heat they've taken from it from gamers and the industry would presumably encourage them to try harder next time. They're certainly not going to pull some of the bigger franchises like Call Of Duty without a GOOD network solution.

No company likes to take big risks, however. Even though Sony Computer Entertainment, one division of Sony, has minimized the risk by making games released on the PS 3 provide their own servers, they still have to pay for all of the other features the PSN has to offer, which isn't that risky since Sony's other divisions can do that. For Nintendo, it's much, much riskier since no other divisions can pay for it.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Its a risk they have to take.

They can either A) Take the risk and build a decent online service or B) Watch their company wither and die as gamers move on to systems that have a better online service.

It's a risk they HAVE to take if they want to stay in business.

That's... not true. Casual players will still exist and still buy Nintendo's stuff.

Hardcore aren't the only market. I want to see them work towards both markets as well, mind you, but they're not actually losing here anyway.

Quest 64 thread

Am I the only person who has no problems with Nintendo's online?

NO TREE FOR ME (ALSO LOVES HER BOYFRIEND)

You are not. Then again I never use it because I have no desire for online play.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

The thing is that Friend codes (like street pass) are made for mainly a Japanese audience. Everyone is close together and almost everyone owns a nintendo system.

edited 16th Jul '11 2:38:47 PM by jayday12345678910

....Why

That would be true, except that the casual market is no longer viable like it was with the Wii.

Casuals aren't looking to buy a new system every generation like hardcores. That's why Nintendo is switching to the hardcore audience, which they will fail at unless they build a system like the PSN or LIVE.

Now days, people expect online gameplay. If you can't deliver, they just move on to someone else.

"People expect online gameplay"

Some may, but not everyone is interested. And considering how cheap the Nintendo systems still are, they're the best choice as is. I have yet to see how they're losing. And they really aren't going much towards Hardcore as is. They have some games, but most games on the Wii are casual. Really, the DS(and similar) are doing fine for hardcore gaming.

You have to remember that not everybody thinks the same. Not everybody plays "hardcore" and not everybody cares about online. I still think the Wii's online service is poor in general, but they'll do what they want, and unless you can show an actual chart of them losing money, there's no actual problem.

Quest 64 thread

They actually aren't switching casual to core for the Wii U, they're really aiming for both. They still want simple pick-up-and-play experiences while encouraging third parties to deliver with deeper experiences while still providing their own first-party core titles.

Also, Nintendo will never take a big risk with online, since it isn't just a short-term risk, it's a continuous risk, since consumer payments may rise at one point and fall at another, and they aren't part of a wider company that can pay for temporary slumps.

edited 16th Jul '11 3:05:53 PM by WaxingName

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

They will soon learn that you can't have both the casuals and core gamers.

The casualness will alienate the core gamers and hardcore aspects will alienate the casuals.

It's like mixing oil and water.

People expect online. Nine out of ten times when you ask a gamer if they want good online or just offline gameplay, they'll choose online.

That's just the way the industry is moving. If Nintendo can't keep up, they'll lose.

edited 16th Jul '11 3:32:34 PM by TheProffesor

I find your pulling facts out of your ass disturbing.

NO TREE FOR ME (ALSO LOVES HER BOYFRIEND)

Yeah, maybe if you're asking the Call Of Duty crowd.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

Yep, when the Kinect came out, core gamers sold their 360s in droves and vowed to never buy another Microsoft product lest the casual poison their testerone.

Joking aside, online networks are very important now. There's a great deal of content that needs to be delivered digitally that Nintendo is missing out on. Wii Ware was a giant failure for devs and for gamers. Casuals like online interaction - just take a look at the social gaming boom if you don't believe me.

edited 16th Jul '11 3:41:45 PM by Rebochan